Battle descriptions

[Sanguinary Guardian]

Greetings, fellow AAR or FF writers!
I have a question for all of you. It concerns battle depictions. In both my works, the FF I write about the mod Thera: Legacy of the Great Torment and my Military Science Fiction project, I've found that battle descriptions can be either up-close and personal or more impersonal, like history books. Considering that both my characters are relatively low rank [one being a minor knight (in the Thera FF) and the other a grunt (In the MSF)], I usually opt for the first option. However, I believe that for large scale battles, the second option would be more useful as it gives an idea of the tactics employed. I would like to read your opinions on the matter.
I apologize if this has been asked before.

[Rex Anglorvm]

What I prefer is a close up battle decription for the lower ranks using one character, but to describe the fluid movements of a large scale set piece battle by using a more senior character.

In that way I try to have a battle that is described from top to bottom - hoping to cover the in your face sweating, dirty, bloody hand to hand fighting, to the views of a senior commander - so that you get his more human take on the scene before him, rather than that of a dry historical perspective.

But it depends on what you are after, if you want to detail your works in the style of a classical author, you may wish to adopt the more dry style of a neutral observer.

At the end of the day there is no best style to approach a battle scene, it all depends on what you feel comfortable writing about.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

It depends, are you wanting a more emotion-filled experience, or a broader perspective of the tactics and the effects on the army as a whole?

If you answer the first one then I would suggest writing it from the perspective of the common solider - recounting how he fights, and what he feels. Something like this:

Spoiler for Example one:: 

My heart was pounding louder then the marching drums. Every step was a step closer. A step closer to death, or to honour. I heard the signal to advance, and me and my fellow comrades charge towards the enemy. Our cries ringing out across the plains as our bodies were taken of by a lust for battle. A lust for revenge.

Several men were shot down as we charge towards them. I crouched low, hoping to avoid one of the deadly missiles, I felt one screech past my ear, leaving a ringing sound vibrating through my body. But I didn't care, I was ready.

I let out another battle cry as we neared the enemy, lowering my spear just as I saw the fear enter the eyes of my enemy, the sweat dripping down his forehead. I hurled myself at their lines, stabbing at anything my spear connect with, and sweeping my shield around, blocking oncoming strikes. I was like a demon. No. I was a demon.

This way you get an intense, limited view of the action - but I feel it creates a more emotive reading experience. Similarly you could write the same type of thing in 3rd person, although it may not be as intense you can still get across the main personal feelings, the benefit being you can also add some extra information that the character in question doesn't know. e.g.

Spoiler for Example 2:: 

Damien's heart was pounding louder, and louder, as the army began it's advance towards the line of enemy. The commander let out the signal and the entire army surged towards their prey like the oncoming tide. Damien heard the signal and as he ran forward let out a fearsome cry soon taken up by the rest of the men. Their cries rang out across the battlefield, they were ready. Ready for revenge.

More and more of the men were getting shot down as the army neared the enemy lines. Damien heard one whistle past his head, and he instinctively ducked, trying to avoid the rain of arrows being fired towards them.

Damien prepared to engage with the enemy, as did the rest of the army. Everyone was intent on winning today, they needed to. If they lost it would be the end of their short campaign, the men don't know but the rest of their enemies are closing in, a defeat today would seal their fate. He hurled himself towards the enemy, stabbing out at anything that moved, whilst moving his shield around trying to block the enemies blows.

As you can see the latter is more detailed, Damien doesn't know why they need to win - but the reader does. It's the extra information that can be brought across by the narrator. This is the major benefit of 3rd person, more details can be added. However, I feel you lose the intense personal view of 1st person , I don't know if that is because it's my preferred writing style or what - but you should type up a little bit in both styles, read them back, and see which one you prefer.

If you're answer is the second one then you could go for something like this:

Spoiler for Example 1:: 

The armies met each other at the crossroads of the Shank and Bot pass. The English had positioned themselves along the ridge-line, taking up an effective defensive position. On the other hand, the opposing army were ill-organised and lacking in any from of central command, cohesions, and discipline.

The rain had stopped only a few hours before which meant the ground was boggy, and would make movability difficult. However, the French didn't seem to take this into account as they charged across the field towards their enemies line. The English opened fire and...

Here you have a more detailed view, but lacking in any from of emotion. This is useful if you want the battle to be like a report, or a recount from a book etc. You could also, as Radzeer suggested, mix the two of them together. This could be done as he suggested, or by writing in first person as the commander. This way you can get an idea of the tactics etc., and when the general makes that heroic charge to win the day - that's when you can get in your emotion and intesneity.

At the end of the day, pick whichever version you prefer, or fits the scenario you're writing it in. Maybe write out a few different examples in the different formats and see which one you enjoyed the most to write, and which one sounds the best.

Hope we've helped.

[Radzeer]

It depends on what effect you are trying to get. If the story needs to show the protagonist in the middle of action (i.e. you need this for character development or advancing the plot), you can sacrifice the description of tactics. If it is more important fr the reader to see the general progress of the battle, use the broad perspective.

And of course you can have the best of both worlds too. Tell the story from the individual perspective of the soldier, then add a dialog or a letter later which describes the tactics with which the battle was won (or lost). Or describe the battle first, and then have your soldier reflect on the carnage with his own word in the pub after the battle.

[Heiro de Bodemloze]

Thank you Shank, for suggesting this thread. I have read here before, only there were no replies . I'll take this into mind next time I read a battle-chapter..

[wowbanger]

Or describe the battle first, and then have your soldier reflect on the carnage with his own word in the pub after the battle.

Ah that reminds me of my favourite story to write. Writing from the perspective of a drunk Scotsman really was quite fun.

Anyway back on topic, I have to agree with what everyone else has said, but really I'd recommend trying out a few styles and seeing which one you prefer and which comes out best.